The Ever-Shifting Pendulum Between Israel and Hamas: Implications of Qatar
Graphic by Isabella Garcia.
On Tuesday, September 9, 2025, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave the green light to move forward in a targeted attack against Hamas in the northern suburbs of Doha, Qatar. Although this attack was targeted at senior Hamas leaders, Hamas stated that Israel failed to kill senior officials of the group and instead killed the son of Hamas’s chief negotiator, his office manager, a member of Qatar’s international security forces, and three others affiliated with Hamas.
Israel has promised to track down and kill every Hamas member involved in the events of October 7 and return the 200+ hostages home. Despite the continuous backing and support Israel has received from the US, Israel’s undenying desire to kill Hamas has surpassed the rule of law, further dismissing international law by attacking on Qatari soil, striking not only a primary meditator in ending the war in Gaza, but also a U.S. ally.
This is by no coincidence the same place where Hamas maliciously executed their attack on October 7, 2023. It should not go without mention that although these events are nearly two years apart, the devastations resulting from October 7 have propagated into conflict in lieu of serving Hamas the revenge Israel sees so fit.
Following Israel's attack on Tuesday, President Trump responded by relaying to the media he did not make the decision to attack Qatar and was not notified in time to change the minds of Israeli forces. Trump further stated,
“Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a Sovereign Nation and close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals,” he wrote.
“However, eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.”
In response to the attack, Hamas released a statement that Hamas officials were in the process of discussing a cease-fire proposal by the Trump administration when Israel fired strikes on Qatari soil. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed, later stated that Qatar would continue to serve as a mediator in the war, but that the country’s government had also formed a legal team determined to follow through with a response to Israel’s attack.
The controversy surrounding Qatar lies in the fact that it not only hosts two major U.S. military bases, but also provides Hamas $30 million a month. Although Israel has defended their attack on Qatar as justified, Qatar, a pragmatic nation in the conflict, believes Israel has been engaged in “state terrorism.” Trump, after receiving a $400 million ex-Qatari jet as an “unconditional donation,” has assured Qatar on a recent phone call that, "such a thing will not happen again on their soil."
The issue dominating public conversation following the airstrike, is where Hamas and Israel still stand in a cease-fire. The complexity of the conflict between Israel and Hamas is rooted in the tension between the two nations' visions that are competing against coexistence.
Israel relies on two premises: self defense and self-determination. Needless to say, this is in direct tension with the two military objectives of Hamas: establishing an Islamic state and opposing the existence of the state of Israel. Setting aside all of the thorny and incendiary comments regarding the conflict, the real question remains: How will peace be achieved?
The most significant area of conflict is rooted in the mutual perception of injustice, as each side regards the other as fundamentally wrong. Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group leveraging human shields in order to gain military advantage by using logistic lines of communication and military operations located in civilian buildings. This has in no way stopped Israel from unleashing an unproportionately devastating attack on Gaza. Aside from the derogatory reiterations of this conflict, outside perspectives should aim to focus on the fact that Hamas has been using human shields as bargaining chips in the negotiation process, and Israel has chosen to respond by dismissing international law and unproportionately unleashing vast devastation.
In order to establish negotiation as a pathway to peace, we must suspend our own ideas of morality and pragmatically search for the answer as to how these two nations can engage in peace. This pathway is tainted by the hollow implications of a political bandaid, which is precisely what a ceasefire represents in this situation. Reaching a status quo - where both entities agree to suspend acts of violence against one another - offers only the illusion of peace, engraving deeper divisions festering in Middle Eastern soil, but still temporarily freezing hostilities.
It is strategically beneficial for Hamas to work towards the proposed ceasefire, as their currency in negotiation slims as the fury of Israel intensifies. Hamas no longer benefits from the backing of its “big brother” Iran. To make matters worse, Israel has made it clear they are not ready to make peace, leaving Israel’s currency sheer firepower. Israel is searching for any means of commitment from Hamas that they are going to stop an attack and it is in the best interest of Hamas to do so before Israel chooses “self-defense” once again. While a ceasefire is the best option available for both states, Israel will not concede, and neither will Hamas. This ceasefire is rather a political bandaid on the moral cancer existing within Israel and Hamas.